Paul/Palin 2016... Possible GOP Ticket?

[philly rabbit]

Is Palin a human being in your opinion?

And I haven't even got to the: Is Palin a woman question yet.

How about you Howey?

My money says neither of you can bring yourselves to make any decent nod toward Palin as a woman and a human being without also smearing her in a degrading fashion.

 

[Robo]

But no contracts are being prohibited. Homosexuals are free to make the same exact contract with a person of the opposite sex, there is no sexuality prerequisite in obtaining a marriage licence. You are wanting to include something that is not marriage and make a contract of marriage, and the Constitution does not give you that right. We can't call things "marriage" because we want to do them, and believe that's how to make them constitutional.

Well Goober you’ve been supplied with links that prove you’re full of babbling shit. Just keep your Taliban head up your Taliban ass and deny, deny and deny.

I have a State of Alabama Hunting License. I can't go out and start mowing down people, and when the police arrive, say, "hey, it's okay guys, I have a hunting license!"

And of course that absurd portrait in your Taliban pea-brain is of equal significance with gays getting married, right moron?

 

[Robo]

Hmmm... God doesn't board ships or enter buildings where JoPs are? I thought He was omnipresent?

But legal marriages are performed regularly Goober without a Bible or any mention of a God. How come you don’t protest them? Your fucking ignorant, prejudiced, stupid and insane argument has been that marriage is “Holy Matrimony.” “Holy” denotes “religious” Goober.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well Goober you’ve been supplied with links that prove you’re full of babbling shit. Just keep your Taliban head up your Taliban ass and deny, deny and deny.

And of course that absurd portrait in your Taliban pea-brain is of equal significance with gays getting married, right moron?

This has nothing to do with the Taliban. Your links don't prove a damn thing, you keep insisting that gays are being denied marriage licenses, and that isn't the case or the law in ANY state, as far as I know. They can't obtain a marriage license for same-sex couples, because that isn't "marriage" just like fucking a goat ain't "marriage!" The prohibition on marrying goats, just like same-sex partners, applies to every couple applying for a marriage license, because these things do not constitute "marriage." Lot and LOTS of things are NOT marriage, and you can't obtain a marriage license in order to do them. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, it has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. It has everything to do with what "marriage" means, and what it has always meant in western culture and civilization. It has NEVER included same-sex relationships.

Now, the purely Libertarian argument is, that we have the right as people to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. I have no problem with this argument, but you want to completely skip over this challenge and pretend we've already established this. And IF we have the right to determine, as people, that same-sex couples can marry, we can also, as people, decide that same-sex relationships are NOT marriage. If this is something that the courts or government can decide, again, they can decide both ways. But you are not Libertarian, you are a flaming left-wing social liberal. You believe the Constitution gives you permission to force whatever the fuck you please on the rest of society, even if they vehemently do not want it. You believe it's okay to lie, manipulate, misconstrue, misinterpret, misrepresent, distort and pervert, it doesn't matter-- ends justifies the means!

 

[maineman]

That doesn't matter, people drink wine and eat bread all the time, it's not Eucerest. Because it is ALSO tied to religious exercise, you aren't permitted to just change it. It would be like passing a law that prevents you from traveling to church on Sunday. It is an encroachment on religious exercise. It's also like passing a law that businesses MUST be open on Sunday, you can't really do that, because many business owners respect the Sabbath. Such a law would encroach on their religious freedoms.

People have the inalienable right to religious exercise (not just expression). One of the fundamental exercises is a ceremonial uniting of a man and woman, so they can go forth and produce and raise families. This is foundational to the religion and religious belief, and the government has no right to determine the parameters. That is the religious defense of traditional marriage in a nutshell, and it is a valid defense, but it's not the only argument against same-sex marriage.

My argument has always been about the 'equal protection' clause, and how it can be applied in the post-finding 'marriage' can be redefined to conform to sexual behavior? IF we are Constitutionally bound to alter marriage in order to accommodate homosexual relationships, we have to also allow other similar relationships. There is no way to avoid this, once we have made marriage about sexuality, and not merely a contract between a man and woman, without a sexuality component. Slippery slope? Can of worms? Whatever you want to call it, the Constitution is clear, we have to adhere to 'equal protection' and we will have to live by whatever standard we set.

But again I ask you, why are you still presenting arguments for a problem we have both agreed on a solution to?

because several different solutions present themselves. If I gave you directions from point A to point B, would you naturally assume that that path was the single and only possible way to get there? Of course not. You and I agree on one theoretical solution. Where we disagree is your suggestion that religion gets to define marriage even for people who are not religious. No one is suggesting that churches be forced to perform gay marriages. If the church YOU attend does not want to marry gays, that's their business. If MY church does, it should have every right to do so... and the benefits that fall to citizens because of their marital status need to fall to all who attain that status, regardless of whether or not they share the same gender. Until such time as the government gets out of the matrimony business altogether, and the church gets out of the civil union business altogether - the solution that you and I agree upon - people on the side of marriage equality are certainly free to seek other solutions, both political and judicial.

 

[philly rabbit]

Well Goober you’ve been supplied with links that prove you’re full of babbling shit. Just keep your Taliban head up your Taliban ass and deny, deny and deny.



And of course that absurd portrait in your Taliban pea-brain is of equal significance with gays getting married, right moron?

Ahh excuse me, why do you keep calling him Goober?

 

[philly rabbit]

This has nothing to do with the Taliban. Your links don't prove a damn thing, you keep insisting that gays are being denied marriage licenses, and that isn't the case or the law in ANY state, as far as I know. They can't obtain a marriage license for same-sex couples, because that isn't "marriage" just like fucking a goat ain't "marriage!" The prohibition on marrying goats, just like same-sex partners, applies to every couple applying for a marriage license, because these things do not constitute "marriage." Lot and LOTS of things are NOT marriage, and you can't obtain a marriage license in order to do them. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, it has nothing to do with my personal religious beliefs. It has everything to do with what "marriage" means, and what it has always meant in western culture and civilization. It has NEVER included same-sex relationships.

Now, the purely Libertarian argument is, that we have the right as people to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. I have no problem with this argument, but you want to completely skip over this challenge and pretend we've already established this. And IF we have the right to determine, as people, that same-sex couples can marry, we can also, as people, decide that same-sex relationships are NOT marriage. If this is something that the courts or government can decide, again, they can decide both ways. But you are not Libertarian, you are a flaming left-wing social liberal. You believe the Constitution gives you permission to force whatever the fuck you please on the rest of society, even if they vehemently do not want it. You believe it's okay to lie, manipulate, misconstrue, misinterpret, misrepresent, distort and pervert, it doesn't matter-- ends justifies the means!

Excuse me sir,

Could you tell me if you are a white person .. a Caucasian if you will?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But legal marriages are performed regularly Goober without a Bible or any mention of a God. How come you don’t protest them? Your fucking ignorant, prejudiced, stupid and insane argument has been that marriage is “Holy Matrimony.” “Holy” denotes “religious” Goober.

Because the Constitution doesn't give me the right to demand others adhere to my religious beliefs. And because our laws are not beholden to religious dogma, pursuant to the 1st Amendment, in order to have "marriage" in America, it has to be allowed as a secular ceremony as well. If we lived under Taliban rule, there would be no issue and you would be without your head, so you wouldn't be running your mouth as much.

This particular meme is most bizarre. The only reason marriage exists in America, is because the tradition came over here from Europe, where it was exclusively a religious ceremony, tied closely to the couple's religious beliefs. There was really no such thing as "secular" marriage, but since we adopted a Constitution with freedom of religious exercise, no religious prerequisite was required for marriage. You want to use this fact of our Constitutional freedom, and pervert it into an excuse to divorce marriage from religion completely. It is still a fundamental part of most Christian (and Muslim) based religions. The fact that we allow you to have marriages that aren't religiously based, doesn't change the fact that it's still a largely important aspect of religious exercise.

That's the part none of you seem to be grasping here. You can't pass laws which prohibit the free exercise of religion. Traditional marriage is a fundamental and important part of religious exercise. You are not required to have a religious marriage, because we guarantee your religious freedom here, but you do have to respect and tolerate the religious beliefs of others. Lest we become, The Taliban!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Excuse me sir,

Could you tell me if you are a white person .. a Caucasian if you will?

I don't identify myself as caucasian. I look like a white person, but my heritage includes; Cherokee, Choctaw, Asian, Creole, and something known as Black Dutch, which were German peasants who escaped persecution and lived in the Black Forest. Since I am predominantly Native American, that is how I identify.

Does this have anything to do with the topic, or were you just curious?

 

[philly rabbit]

I don't identify myself as caucasian. I look like a white person, but my heritage includes; Cherokee, Choctaw, Asian, Creole, and something known as Black Dutch, which were German peasants who escaped persecution and lived in the Black Forest. Since I am predominantly Native American, that is how I identify.

Does this have anything to do with the topic, or were you just curious?

No I apologize for intruding into the topic you're discussing but I'm wondering why he keeps calling you Goober.

What does he mean by Goober?

 

[philly rabbit]

By the way, many, many, southerners have Indian blood in their veins especially Cherokee blood.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

because several different solutions present themselves. If I gave you directions from point A to point B, would you naturally assume that that path was the single and only possible way to get there? Of course not. You and I agree on one theoretical solution. Where we disagree is your suggestion that religion gets to define marriage even for people who are not religious. No one is suggesting that churches be forced to perform gay marriages. If the church YOU attend does not want to marry gays, that's their business. If MY church does, it should have every right to do so... and the benefits that fall to citizens because of their marital status need to fall to all who attain that status, regardless of whether or not they share the same gender. Until such time as the government gets out of the matrimony business altogether, and the church gets out of the civil union business altogether - the solution that you and I agree upon - people on the side of marriage equality are certainly free to seek other solutions, both political and judicial.

I've not argued that religion gets to define marriage. If that was my argument, I would be advocating prohibition of secular marriage.

If people are free to continue insisting marriage is something it's not, then people are also free to continue passing things like DOMA. So, do we ever reach the "solution" we agreed on? It seems to me, we can't actually start working on implementation of the solution until we stop arguing about the problem. As long as we remain stuck in argument mode, it doesn't matter that we have come to agreement on the solution, does it? As long as you maintain people have the right to fight for gay marriage, then you have to accept they also have the right to fight for traditional marriage. So is it more important to have the issue, because you realize it polarizes people and stirs emotions? Is it because you can exploit the issue to denigrate and tarnish your political opponents?

Are you REALLY concerned with helping homosexual couples realize benefits and perks enjoyed by traditional couples? How are we moving toward that day, if we continue this perpetual argument over something we both agree on the solution to? Aren't you, in fact, exploiting this issue, as well as the lives of homosexual couples, in order to maintain a highly-emotional political issue?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No I apologize for intruding into the topic you're discussing but I'm wondering why he keeps calling you Goober.

What does he mean by Goober?

Pinheads here do that. They lack a whole lot of imagination, so they tend to seize on a particular word and convince themselves that repeatedly calling me that, is somehow causing me anguish. For a while, it was "rube" ...except, sometimes they capitalized "Rube," which I thought was a nice touch.

Now, you'll have to ask the idiot why he is stuck on "Goober" but my guess would be one of several things; he means "goober" as in a penis or dick, which he's absolutely right, I am a dick to him, and I'm often fucking his ass relentlessly in debate, so that fits. Or... he could be referring to James "Goober" Lindsey, who is also from Alabama, my home state. Then there is the possibility he means I am a peanut, which is sometimes called a "goober."

Again, the important thing to remember is, the retard has very little imagination, and "goober" is actually quite an achievement for him to even think up. I can certainly think of worse things to be called, it doesn't bother me, and the low-brow humor I get out of seeing him so frustrated he doesn't realize how much he has over-used the word, is just priceless. Yeah, I'm sick.

 

[philly rabbit]

Pinheads here do that. They lack a whole lot of imagination, so they tend to seize on a particular word and convince themselves that repeatedly calling me that, is somehow causing me anguish. For a while, it was "rube" ...except, sometimes they capitalized "Rube," which I thought was a nice touch.

Now, you'll have to ask the idiot why he is stuck on "Goober" but my guess would be one of several things; he means "goober" as in a penis or dick, which he's absolutely right, I am a dick to him, and I'm often fucking his ass relentlessly in debate, so that fits. Or... he could be referring to James "Goober" Lindsey, who is also from Alabama, my home state. Then there is the possibility he means I am a peanut, which is sometimes called a "goober."

Again, the important thing to remember is, the retard has very little imagination, and "goober" is actually quite an achievement for him to even think up. I can certainly think of worse things to be called, it doesn't bother me, and the low-brow humor I get out of seeing him so frustrated he doesn't realize how much he has over-used the word, is just priceless. Yeah, I'm sick.

I'm laughing .. thank you.

 

[Howey]

Black Dutch

Now that's a description my family of jews never told me!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

By the way, many, many, southerners have Indian blood in their veins especially Cherokee blood.

We actually found that our Indian heritage was on both my father and mother's side. We had always suspected we had Indian in us, because so many in my family just look like the quintessential Indian, but it wasn't until my sister began to research our family history, that the strong connections were discovered. People don't realize this, but up until about 50-60 years ago, being "Indian" came with an extremely undesired social stigma. For this reason, many families with Native American heritage, simply had it buried, never admitted it, went to great lengths in some cases, to hide it. Both my Cherokee and Choctaw ancestors did this, they took "Christian" names, and along with their husband's last name, their 'secret' was safe.

In addition to my rich Native American heritage, I am also proud of my Asian heritage. My great-grandmother was Mae Akia, who was Japanese royalty. Among my families relatives are, Lucille Ball and Emily Dickinson... and yes, even Barack Obama! Although, not from his black side, his white mother was part Cherokee, which is how we are related.

 

[maineman]

I've not argued that religion gets to define marriage. If that was my argument, I would be advocating prohibition of secular marriage.

If people are free to continue insisting marriage is something it's not, then people are also free to continue passing things like DOMA. So, do we ever reach the "solution" we agreed on? It seems to me, we can't actually start working on implementation of the solution until we stop arguing about the problem. As long as we remain stuck in argument mode, it doesn't matter that we have come to agreement on the solution, does it? As long as you maintain people have the right to fight for gay marriage, then you have to accept they also have the right to fight for traditional marriage. So is it more important to have the issue, because you realize it polarizes people and stirs emotions? Is it because you can exploit the issue to denigrate and tarnish your political opponents?

Are you REALLY concerned with helping homosexual couples realize benefits and perks enjoyed by traditional couples? How are we moving toward that day, if we continue this perpetual argument over something we both agree on the solution to? Aren't you, in fact, exploiting this issue, as well as the lives of homosexual couples, in order to maintain a highly-emotional political issue?

nothing ever changes in America without people getting outraged or otherwise motivated. Do you think that the Civil Rights advances of the 1960's would have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. and others like him did not stir the emotions of blacks an whites alike? You and I agreeing to one theoretical solution does not bring about change. Vigorous political debate does. People committing to highly emotional political issues... that's how we work.... your side AND mine. Let's see who wins this one... my money is on my side. The winds of change in public opinion have been striking and powerful. Change has occurred much faster than anyone thought possible. More and more states will allow gay marriage, and, sooner or later, SCOTUS will make it the law of the land.... and I am willing to bet that I will live to see it happen.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

nothing ever changes in America without people getting outraged or otherwise motivated. Do you think that the Civil Rights advances of the 1960's would have happened if Martin Luther King Jr. and others like him did not stir the emotions of blacks an whites alike? You and I agreeing to one theoretical solution does not bring about change. Vigorous political debate does. People committing to highly emotional political issues... that's how we work.... your side AND mine. Let's see who wins this one... my money is on my side. The winds of change in public opinion have been striking and powerful. Change has occurred much faster than anyone thought possible. More and more states will allow gay marriage, and, sooner or later, SCOTUS will make it the law of the land.... and I am willing to bet that I will live to see it happen.

Or maybe, more and more states adopt Prop 8's and ban gay marriage? If the people have the right to determine "gay" marriage is legal, they have the right to determine it isn't. The solution you and I advocate, requires us to remove government from determining this, or the people determining it, because it no longer needs to be determined. The problem is solved.

This is not a Civil Rights issue, and you actually insult every black American by trying to claim it is. Gay people are not being prohibited from marrying, they are being prohibited from calling same-sex unions, marriage, the same as everyone else.

Stirring emotions can be a dangerous thing. That's how we ended up with Prohibition. Our BEST moments have come when people can agree on a solution and work together to implement it. Emotions don't have to be stirred, because there is a sense of unity and accomplishment, and this fosters pride, which trumps the need to stir emotions. But you reveal the nature of your viewpoint, this is political activism. You are just always going to gravitate toward a more liberal social society, and you think this makes you a winner, because cultures tend to be progressive in nature.

So resolving the problem with Civil Unions, as we've discussed and agreed on, would give thousands of gay couples the rights they seek, to be able to live their lives the same as their straight counterparts, is not the most important thing for you. It's MORE important that you continue to "fight the good fight" and push for something the nation is pushing strongly against you on, because you have a liberal social ideology. Besides, this is like part of the Third Rail against Republicans... Gays, God and Guns! Can't give that up before the midterms, no way! Sorry gays!

 

[Howey]

By the way, many, many, southerners have Indian blood in their veins especially Cherokee blood.

Especially since the government started handing out checks!

until about 50-60 years ago, being "Indian" came with an extremely undesired social stigma.

I am also proud of my Asian heritage. My great-grandmother was Mae Akia, who was Japanese royalty. Among my families relatives are, Lucille Ball

until about 50-60 years ago, being "Indian" came with an extremely undesired social stigma.

I am also proud of my Asian heritage. My great-grandmother was Mae Akia, who was Japanese royalty.

Wow...they're so royal there's no mention of them on the internet and no such Japanese word as "Akia"! Do they have millions of monopoly money stashed away in Germany, too?

Among my families relatives are, Lucille Ball

Wow. So am I, Cousin Dixie!

This is not a Civil Rights issue

Yes, it is.

So resolving the problem with Civil Unions, as we've discussed and agreed on

lol...no, we haven't.

 

[Robo]

Ahh excuse me, why do you keep calling him Goober?

Because he IS a Goober!!!!